We should pass laws to make Google's life hard! Oh no, sorry, did we say that out loud? asks IBM

Add IBM to the list of tech companies putting their support behind America's Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA). The enterprise IT titan said the controversial US legislation was just peachy as far as it was concerned. Its legal eagles does not share the position of others in Silicon Valley that the incoming law, aimed …

[Scoular]

Self interest yes but is there a vaild point too

IBM has not been above bad behaviour by a long way but perhaps they do have a point in suggesting the newer competitors are even less ethical.

[Mark 85]

Re: Self interest yes but is there a vaild point too

Maybe it not them being "less ethical" but less stealthy about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Ads? Facebook Ads?

Wow! I've never seen any of them. Hey Google etc Customers. We hate your ads. We block them ALL. Time to think of another channel for your Ad spend. I happen to know of a great place for that Ad spend.

Yours

Sir Martin Sorell, CEO of Ad agency.

[Anonymous Coward]

'cause IBM is such a kind loving company...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Just sayin'

[mark l 2]

HP and IBM are behind this change not because they feel it will help stop trafficking but because it will directly benefit them by making things harder for Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. No doubt if IBM had a stake in a social media platform that allowed people to post content they would be lobbying against it.

[Justicesays]

Well, lack of responsibility is why these companies are so profitable

Denying all responsibility with a claim that it's "impossible" to moderate, check or otherwise examine the volume of data these companies deal with is how Google etc. are making such profits.

They get all of the benefits (e.g. sales from app store) without any of the responsibility (e,g. not their problem if malware apps get posted, unless they are told about it).

Their business strategy is to make their users/data sources their unpaid moderators/testers etc. on top of selling them out to advertisers ofc.

Uncurated content is the bane of the internet and it's just getting worse, with things like Steam jumping on the bandwagon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as long as

so Google turns around and says "Sure, we're OK with that, as long as it's IBM implementing the system..."

That would keep Google safe for a good 5-10 years.

[Andrew Orlowski]

"Basically, technology old-timer IBM doesn't exactly mind seeing laws passed that make it harder for Google and other internet whippersnappers to rake in money."

I'm intrigued by this. How is Google inconvenienced by a law on sex trafficking. Is Google actually a sex trafficker? Similarly with political ads, and checking where they come from - this should not be onerous.

If being obliged to act ethically is an inconvenience, we need new Googles. These ones aren't worth defending.

Context:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/07/oracle_s230/

Background:

Congress told Google "don't you dare pull a SOPA on this." Instead it sends its grumbles through EFF and other client organisations, but that's all it can do now. Grumble.

[Dave 13]

Anything

IBM is for any law that drags down successful 'upstarts' like FB, MS, Amazon and Google. They've painted themselves into a corner with the technology and business choices they've made, hollowing themselves out to the point where they offer little value to anyone but C-level suits in Armonk. The thinking there must be that if FB and Google are raking it in, and they're not, something must be illegal, or at least should be.

That said, the proposed laws on ad funding disclosure pose an interesting question - why would *anyone* be against that. Don't be evil, etc..